life covenant church complaint

8/10/2019 Life Covenant Church Complaint

1/30

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

LIFE COVENANT CHURCH, INC.

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. ___________

TOWN OF COLONIE, TOWN OFCOLONIE PLANNING BOARD, PETERSTUTO, TIMOTHY LANE, LOUISMION, SUSAN MILSTEIN, BRIANAUSTIN, CRAIG SHAMLIAN,KATHLEEN DALTON, JOSEPH

LACIVITA, MICHAEL C. MAGGUILLI,REBEKAH NELLIS KENNEDY.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Defendants.

PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Life Covenant Church, Inc., (LifeChurch) the Plaintiff in the above-entitled and

numbered case, files this Original Complaint against Defendants Town of Colonie (the Town) ,

Town of Colonie Planning Board (Planning Board), Peter Stuto, Timothy Lane, Louis Mion,

Susan Milstein, Brian Austin, Craig Shamlian, Kathleen Dalton, (collectively, the Planning

Board Members), Joseph LaCivita (Planning Director) , Michael C. Magguilli (Town

Attorney) , and Rebekah Nellis Kennedy (Assistant Town Attorney) and would respectfully

show the Court as follows:

I.

NATURE OF ACTION

1. This action arises out of LifeChur chs continual efforts to obtain land use

approvals from the Town to construct a new church facility and associated parking on its

property. The Town through its Planning Board, Planning Board Members, Town Attorney, and

1:14-CV-1530 (LEK/RFT)

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 1 of 30


2/30


Assistant Town Attorney (collectively, the Town Officials), has unreasonably delayed the

review and approval of Life Churchs zoning requests in violation of federal and state law.

LifeChurchs zoning requests have been los t in a bureaucratic maze as the Town and Town

Officials have routinely made conflicting requests and continued to unnecessarily delay in

requesting and reviewing materials prior to the Plann ing Boards consideration of LifeChurchs

zoning requests. LifeChurch has reasonably responded to the Town's requests. However, it is

clear based upon the Town s and Town Official s actions and unreasonable delays that any

additional attempts to accommodate the Towns and Town Officials requests would be futile

and LifeChurch's zoning requests have been and will continue to be improperly delayed so as toeffectively be denied.

2. The Towns and Town Officials unreasonable delays, obstruction, and hostility

towards LifeChurch have inflicted immediate injuries and have placed an unjustified substantial

burden on LifeChurchs practice of religion and have applied this burden in a manner that has

discriminated against LifeChurch as a religious organization. Moreover, this suit seeks relief

from the clear and purposeful deprivation of LifeChurchs rights to freedom of religion ,

assembly, speech, and association. In this action, LifeChurch alleges that the Towns and Town

Officials actions violate the United States and New York Constitutions and the Religious Land

Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq . (RLUIPA). As a

result of the Towns and Town Offici als unlawful actions, LifeChurch has suffered and

continues to suffer damages.

3. LifeChurch also files this action for injunctive and declaratory relief to, inter alia ,

compel the issuance of all approvals and permits to allow it to construct its new church facility



3/30


on its property. LifeChurch also seeks compensatory damages and the recovery of its reasonable

and necessary attorneys fees .

II.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343(a)(3), and 1343(a)(4), and under 42 U.S.C.

2000cc et seq. , this Court has jurisdiction over Life Churchs claims arising under federal law.

This Court has jurisdiction over the requests for declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201

and 2202. This Court also has pendant jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction over all state

law claims under 28 U.S.C. 1367(a).

5. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391, as the events or

omissions giving rise to this action occurred in this District and the property that is the subject of

the action is located in this District.

III.

PARTIES

6. LifeChurch is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of

Oklahoma and duly authorized to do business in New York.

7. The Town is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of

New York. The Town may be served with service of process by serving its clerk, Elizabeth A.

DelTorto at Memorial Town Hall 534 Loudon Road, Newtonville, NY 12128, or wherever she

may be found.

8. Town of Colonie Planning Board is municipal land use review board authorized

and created by NYS Town Law 271. The Town of Colonie Planning Board may be served

with service of process by serving its Chairman, Peter Stuto, at 347 Old Niskayuna Road,

Latham, New York 12110 or wherever he may be found.



4/30


9. Upon information and belief, Peter Stuto resides at 19 Newell Ct., Albany,

NY 12204-1227. Peter Stuto is a member of the Town of Colonie Planning Board. Mr. Stuto

may be served with service of process at his residence or wherever he may be found.

10. Upon information and belief, Timothy Lane resides at 7 Sage Ct., Albany, NY

12204-1404. Timothy Lane is a member of the Town of Colonie Planning Board. Mr. Lane may

be served with service of process at his residence or wherever he may be found.

11. Upon information and belief, Louis Mion resides at 1 Altamont Ave, Albany,

NY 12205-3605. Louis Mion is a member of the Town of Colonie Planning Board. Mr. Mion

may be served with service of process at his residence or wherever he may be found.12. Upon information and belief, Susan Milstein resides at 6 Sage Hill Ln, Albany,

NY 12204-1334. Susan Milstein is a member of the Town of Colonie Planning Board. Ms.

Milstein may be served with service of process at her residence or wherever she may be found.

13. Upon information and belief, Brian Austin resides at 14 Starboard Way, Latham,

NY 12110-1306. Brian Austin is a member of the Town of Colonie Planning Board. Mr. Austin

may be served with service of process at his residence or wherever he may be found.

14. Upon information and belief, Craig Shamlian resides at 25 Carriage Hill Drive,

Latham NY 12110-4946. Craig Shamlian is a member of the Town of Colonie Planning Board.

Mr. Shamlian may be served with service of process at his residence or wherever he may be

found.

15. Upon information and belief, Kathleen Dalton resides at 54 Laura Drive, Latham,

NY 12110-2308. Kathleen Dalton is a member of the Town of Colonie Planning Board. Ms.

Dalton may be served with service of process at her residence or wherever she may be found.



5/30


16. Upon information and belief, Joseph LaCivita resides at 9 Belleauwood Cir,

Watervliet, NY 12189-1229. Joseph LaCivita is the Director of Planning and Economic

Development with the Town. Mr. LaCivita may be served with service of process at his

residence or wherever he may be found.

17. Upon information and belief, Michael C. Magguilli resides at 23 Newell Ct.,

Albany NY 12204-1226. Michael C. Magguilli is the Town Attorney. Mr. Magguilli may be

served with service of process at his residence or wherever he may be found.

18. Upon information and belief, Rebekah Nellis Kennedy resides at 4 Marriner Ave.,

Albany NY 12205-2906. Rebekah Nellis Kennedy is the Assistant Town Attorney. Ms.Kennedy may be served with service of process at her residence or wherever she may be found.

19. Each of the individual defendants is named herein in his or her official capacity

only.

IV.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

20. LifeChurch is a religious organization that provides Christian American

Evangelical faith services and faith oriented instruction classes to members of the Capital

District community-at-large. LifeChurch presently provides faith worship services for church

members in their 10,000 square foot facility, which is located at 560 Sand Creek Road, Village

of Colonie, New York. This facility contains approximately 180 seats for its worship services.

The current facility also contains four classrooms for children to attend Sunday school classes

during worship services. The facility also has an associated parking lot that contains only 82

parking spaces.

21. Life Churchs membership has been rapidly growing, more than doubling in the

past five years, and its attendance requirements exceed the capacity of its current facility. The



6/30


inadequacies of the current facility have prevented LifeChurch from performing tasks that it

believes are mandated by God, including expanding LifeChurchs membership and discipling to

more members about the Christian faith. Additionally, the lack of adequate parking has

prevented some current members from attending regularly scheduled religious services.

LifeChurch thus requires the construction of a new facility to accommodate its existing and new

members and to exercise its religious rights. The new facility would also enable LifeChurch to

provide additional faith services and instruction not available at its present facility.

22. Worship sites ( e.g., churches, temples, cathedrals) are essential to most religious

groups, including to LifeChurch and its members. Beyond serving as a meeting place for groupworship and religious services, the sites themselves are sacrosanct, and they serve as symbols of

the tenets and beliefs which are observed, practiced and taught by religious groups such as

LifeChurch. Preventing a religious group such as LifeChurch from building a necessary worship

site fundamentally and substantially chills and inhibits its ability to practice its religion.

23. In order to further fulfill LifeChurchs Christian purposes, LifeChurch purchased

property located in the Town of Colonie (the Property), to construct a new church facility with

appurtenant religious education and training rooms and associated parking (the Project). The

Project would contain a 36,601 square foot facility for worship services, 8 religious education

and training rooms, and 457 parking spaces, which would allow LifeChurch to accommodate its

growing membership.

24. LifeChurchs Project, and its eventual operation of religious facilities upon the

Property, will substantially affect interstate commerce.

25. In order to develop the Project, LifeChurch commenced the site plan review and

subdivision process. Pursuant to the Towns Zoning Code, the first step in the site plan review



7/30


and subdivision process is the submission of a Zoning Verification request to the Towns

Building Department. The purpose of the Zoning Verification is for the Towns Building

Inspector to determine if a proposed project complies with applicable zoning and to determine

what type of approvals are required.

26. On March 21, 2013, LifeChurch submitted a Zoning Verification for its Project to

the Town s Building Department.

27. Upon review of the application, the Towns Building Inspector informed

LifeChurchs project engineer, Sipperly and Associates (Brian Sipperly) , that he had a concern

regarding access to the Property. Access to the Property on the submitted plans showed access by utilizing an existing easement along a private road known as Moffat Lane. Moffat Lane is

physically located upon the parcel adjacent to LifeChurch which is owned by the United States

Postal Service. Moffat Lane is a paved private road utilized by the United States Postal Service

for ingress/egress to its facility located on the United States Postal Service s property. The

Property is adjacent to Moffat Lane and is benefited by a filed and recorded access easement

over Moffat Lane.

28. The Towns Building Inspector informed Mr. Sipperly that the Town would

accept Moffat Lane as LifeChurchs means of access provided that its plans were revised to

show a cul-de-sac being constructed at the end of Moffat Lane.

29. Upon submission of plans incorporating the revisions demanded by the Town

showing Moffat Lane as the means of access with a terminal cul-de-sac to be constructed by

LifeChurch, the Zoning Verification was approved for the subdivision portion of the application.

However, the Zoning Verification for the site plan was denied because LifeChurch s proposed

building exceeded the allowable square footage in the Office-Residential District, which is the



8/30


zoning district where the Property is located. As a result, application for an area variance was

required.

30. On April 8, 2013, LifeChurch filed an application for an area variance for

allowable building square footage with the Towns Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) . The

matter was scheduled to be on the ZBAs agenda for its regularly scheduled June 6, 2013

meeting. Approximately one week prior to the meeting, the Town informed Mr. Sipperly that

the matter was being removed from the June 6, 2013 agenda based upon a paperwork mix-up in

the Town Attorneys office pertaining to the State Environmental Quality Review Act. The

matter was rescheduled for the August 15, 2013 ZBA meeting.31. On June 12, 2013, less than one week after the LifeChurch matter was removed

from the ZBA agenda, one or more Town Officials informed Mr. Sipperly that the Town would

not accept the plans showing access to the Property by means of the access easement across

Moffat Lane. The Town took the position that the Property was landlocked and, in order to

utilize the easement across Moffat Lane, application must be made for an Open Development

Area ( ODA ) approval pursuant to NYS Town Law 280-a.

32. In response, on August 15, 2013, LifeChurch submitted a request for an ODA.

On August 8, 2013, LifeChurch also filed a complete application for site plan and subdivision

approval with the Town.

33. Shortly after this submittal, the Town Attorney questioned whether an ODA

would be required because the Property had frontage on a public street, Watervliet-Shaker Road.

The matter was then placed upon the September 10, 2013 Planning Board agenda for sketch

review.



9/30


34. Soon thereafter, the Town Attorney informed LifeChurch that the Town Planning

Board would not consider an ODA for the Property. On October 13, 2013, a meeting was held

with NYS DOT to discuss access from the parcel directly to Watervliet-Shaker Road. A revised

site plan was submitted showing access directly from Watervliet-Shaker Road. The request for a

two lot subdivision was withdrawn.

35. At the ZBAs December 19, 2013 meeting, the ZBA granted the area variance to

allow for a 36,601 square foot building. Mr. Sipperly immediately requested that the site plan

application be placed upon the Town Planning Boards January 21 , 2014 agenda. However, on

January 3, 2014, Mr. Sipperly was informed that the resubmitted site plan application, previouslyfiled back on November 6, 2013, was incomplete. The Towns P lanning staff also requested a

meeting to discuss the proposed access via Watervliet-Shaker Road.

36. At a meeting held on January 8, 2014, Town Planning staff informed LifeChurch

that they preferred access from Moffat Lane rather than access from Watervliet-Shaker Road.

LifeChurch requested that the matter be placed upon the January 21, 2014 Planning Board

agenda and that it would submit a revised plan showing Moffat Lane access for discussion at that

meeting. On January 13, 2014, Mr. Sipperly submitted revised plans showing Moffat Lane as

the access point.

37. On January 17, 2014, in response to LifeChurchs email to the Town confirming

that the Project was on the January 21, 2014 Planning Board agen da, the Towns Planning

Director, Joseph LaCivita, informed LifeChurch that the Town Attorney pulled the matter from

the agenda. In response, LifeChurch contacted the Town Attorney who stated that he had

questions as to whether the proposed use constituted a church because, to him, it appeared to be a



10/30


commercial television broadcast studio. LifeChurch provided documentation to the Town

Attorney proving that the proposed use was a place of worship.

38. On March 10, 2014, upon completion of additional traffic analysis, an updated

complete application package was submitted to the Town. Mr. Sipperly requested the matter be

placed on the next Town Planning Board agenda. However, Mr. Sipperly was informed that the

application was rejected because the title block on the plan merely stated a wrong location for the

Project.

39. On March 31, 2014, Mr. Sipperly received correspondence from the Town

Planner, Mike Lyons, that the application was complete and being placed upon the TownPlanning Boards meeting agenda for May 6, 2014.

40. On May 1, 2014, Mr. Sipperly was informed that the matter was being

rescheduled to the May 20, 2014 agenda because the Town had insufficient time to review

recently submitted traffic data. However, on May 15, 2014, LifeChurch was again informed that

the matter was being pulled from the May 20th agenda and not being rescheduled based upon

Town discussions with DOT personnel who preferred access from Moffat Lane instead of the

proposed new curb cut. At approximately this same time, the Town Designated Engineer issued

a memo stating their recommendation that the Project be accessed via Moffat Lane. As a result,

LifeChurch requested an immediate meeting with all parties to resolve the conflicting messages

being received from the Town s officials.

41. On May 22, 2014, LifeChurch attended a meeting along with the Project

engineers Lynn and Brian Sipperly. In attendance was the Assistant Town Attorney, the Planning

Director, and Mike Lyons, the Town Planner. At this meeting, Mr. Lyons and the Assistant

Town Attorney advised LifeChurch to submit another request for an ODA to utilize Moffat



11/30


Lane. One or more Town Officials agreed to make the request for the ODA. The Town had in

effect backtracked back to where the Project had been in August 2013 wherein they made the

same recommendation (which was ignored by the Town). LifeChurch requested that, in the

event that the ODA was again refused, then the matter would be placed upon the next available

Town Planning Board agenda for review showing direct access to the public street. Town

Officials present at the meeting agreed to this alternative course of action in the event the ODA

was again refused.

42. On June 19, 2014, the Assistant Town Attorney informed the project engineers by

email that the Town Planning Board would not hear the ODA request. As a result, LifeChurchsought clarification as to the reason and received no response. LifeChurch informed the Towns

Planning Director that it was being forced to resort to litigation to compel the Town to place the

matter on an agenda to be heard. LifeChurch sent a chronology of the above referenced events to

the Planning Director to demonstrate how egregiously it had been treated. On July 23, 2014,

LifeChurch contacted the Towns Planning Department and was informed that the matter was

being placed on the August 12, 2014 Town Planning Board agenda.

43. On August 12, 2014, LifeChurch was before the Towns Planning Board for a

sketch review for the second time, the first of which took place nearly one year before. At this

meeting, LifeChurchs engineers demonstrated that LifeChurchs proposed driveway location

fully complied with New York State Department of Transportation regulations and standards

pertaining to separation distances between driveways and intersections. At this meeting, the

Towns Planning Board raised three items for the first time in again delaying the process in

denying the sketch plan submitted on behalf of LifeChurch. Each of these three new items could

have and should have been raised well before now, if they should have been raised at all.



12/30


44. The Town then advised LifeChurch that it would be on the Town Planning

Boards agenda on September 23, 2014. However, on September 17, 2014, the Planning Director

advised LifeChurch that its matter could be placed on the Town Planning Boards October 7,

2014 agenda but not the September 23, 2014. In response, on September 22, 2014, LifeChurch

sent a demand letter to the Town advising the Town and Town Officials that their continual,

unjustifiable delays were violating LifeChurchs constitutional rights and substantially burdening

its religious exercise. Additionally, LifeChurch advised the Town that if it was not placed on the

October 7, 2014 agenda and if all of its requests were not approved at that time, then it would

consider any further efforts as futile and it would proceed accordingly. Moreover, LifeChurchstated that any further delays or requests for additional information would further illustrate that

the Town was merely seeking to delay LifeChurchs approvals indefinitely and that LifeChurch

would treat such action as a denial of its requests.

45. Even after LifeChurch provided the Town with notice of its unconstitutional

deprivations and violations of RLUIPA, the Town did not place LifeChurch on the Town

Planning Boards agenda for October 7, 2014.

46. Subsequent to the Towns receipt of the letter setting forth the Town s and Town

Officials RLUIPA violations, LifeChurchs application was placed upon the Planning Boards

October 21, 2014 agenda for continued sketch review. At this meeting, LifeChurchs attorneys

and engineers presented its application. Numerous attendees of LifeChurch also addressed the

Planning Board explaining the role of LifeChurch in their lives as well as its role in the local

community.

47. As a result of the testimony provided to the Planning Board at this meeting,

Planning Board members requested tha t Town staff and the Towns outside engineer meet with



13/30


LifeChurchs representatives so that any outstanding issues could be addressed and the matter

brought back to the Planning Board for concept acceptance of the site plan.

48. On October 23, 2014, a meeting was held between LifeChurchs representatives

and the Planning Director along with representatives from the Towns outsi de engineering firm.

LifeChurch was informed by the Towns outside engineers that the purpose of the meeting was

to gather information because the outside engineers were meeting that evening with members of

the Town Planning Board.

49. LifeChurch received no word on the discussion held or outcome of the meeting

held with the elected officials.50. When LifeChur chs representatives inquired as to the status of being placed upon

the Planning Boards agenda, they were informed that the Towns outside enginee rs had not been

working on the Project because the escrow account that LifeChurch had provided to the Town to

pay for the costs of the outside engineer needed to be replenished. LifeChurch immediately

rectified this situation but was told by the Town that it was too late to be placed upon the

December 2, 2014 Planning Board agenda. LifeChurch was informed by the Town that it could

possibly be on the December 16, 2014 meeting agenda provided that the Planning Boards

comments had been addressed.

51. LifeChurchs attorneys then contacted the Towns engineer and inquired if

anything further was required from LifeChurch in order for the outside engineer to complete

their review in time for the December 16, 2014 agenda. They were informed that only an

environmental assessment form needed to be submitted, however, the requested document had

already been provided to the Town by LifeChurch a week before the request from the Towns

outside engineer.



14/30


52. On November 20, 2014 , LifeChurchs attorneys received a memo from the

Towns outside engineer stating that approval of the project will hinge on ODA approval by

the Town Planning Board; a concept recommended and supported by the outside engineers. This

is the same type of approval that LifeChurch had twice sought from the Town Planning Board to

no avail.

53. When seeking clarification on the memo, the Towns outside engineer offered to

meet to explain their position. This meeting occurred on November 25, 2014.

54. At this meeting, LifeChurch was given a list of approval conditions that the

outside engineer stated he was going to recommend to the Town be conditions of any ODAapproval. Thes e conditions attempted to regulate critical aspects of LifeChurchs worship

services and religious activities, including the number of worship services and the time for those

worship services. A true and correct copy of the memo setting forth the conditions is attached

hereto as Exhibit A. LifeChurch informed the outside engineer that a number of the conditions

appeared to be unacceptable and would likely be rejected by LifeChurch leadership.

55. When Town Officials were informed that the proposed conditions were not

acceptable to LifeChurch, LifeChurch was told that it would not be placed upon the December

16, 2014 agenda without accepting the conditions set out by the Town's outside engineer. See

Exhibit B. On December 15, 2014, LifeChurch confirmed from the Town s website that

LifeChurchs application was not on the Town Planning Boards December 16, 2014 meeting

agenda. On December 16, 2014, one or more of LifeChurchs attorneys or representatives

attended the Town Planning Board meeting and LifeChurchs zoning request was not on the

agenda.



15/30


56. As a result of t he Towns continual delay tactic s, LifeChurch had no other option

but to seek the Courts intervention.

57. LifeChurch has no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to redress these

violations of its constitutional rights, and this suit for injunction, declaratory judgment and

damages is its only means of securing complete and adequate relief. No other remedy would

offer LifeChurch substantial and complete protection from the continuation of the Town s and

Town Officials unlawful and unconstitutional acts, policies, and practices. By their

longstanding hostility and bias against LifeChurch and its pending application, the Town and

Town Officials have demonstrated that, without the imposition of preliminary injunctive relief,the continuation of proceedings before the Town Planning Board will be interminable and futile.

58. LifeChurch has sustained an immediate, irreparable injury because of the Towns

and Town Officials delays and unlawful burden they have placed on LifeChurchs exercise of

religion. The Towns and Town Officials continual delay, hostility, and obstruction has caused

LifeChurch to incur damages including unnecessary engineering and attorneys fees and

expenses caused by the Town and Town Officials. LifeChurch will also continue to incur

significant expenses for repairs and maintenance to its current facility that would not be

necessary if it was allowed to timely begin the Project. As such, in addition to the substantial

burden being placed on LifeChurchs religious exercise, it has and will continue to incur

damages as the result of the Towns and Town Officials actions.



16/30


V.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I

Violation of RLUIPASubstantial Burden

(42. U.S.C. 2000cc(a))

59. LifeChurch incorporates herein by reference as if fully set forth below the

allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 58.

60. The Town and Town Officials have deprived and continue to deprive LifeChurch

of its right to the free exercise of religion, as secured by RLUIPA, by imposing and

implementing land use regulations that place a substantial burden on Life Churchs religious

exercise without a compelling governmental interest. This substantial burden affects, or removal

of that substantial burden would affect, interstate commerce.

COUNT II

Violation of RLUIPANondiscrimination

(42. U.S.C. 2000cc(b)(2))





implementing land use regulations that discriminate against LifeChurch on the basis of religion

or religious denomination.



17/30


COUNT III

Violation of RLUIPAEqual Terms

(42 U.S.C. 2000cc(b)(1))





implementing land use regulations that treat a religious assembly and institution on less than

equal terms with a nonreligious assembly and institution.COUNT IV

Violation of RLUIPAUnreasonable Limitation

(42 U.S.C. 2000cc(b)(3)(b))





implementing land use regulations that unreasonably limit religious assemblies, institutions, or

structures within a jurisdiction.

COUNT V

Violation of the United States ConstitutionFree Exercise of Religion: First and Fourteenth Amendments

(42 U.S.C. 1983)





18/30



of its free exercise of religion, as secured by the First Amendment to the United States

Constitution and made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, by substantially

burdening LifeChurchs religious exercise without a comp elling governmental interest, by

discriminating against LifeChurch, and by intentionally and unreasonably inhibiting its right to

construct a place of worship on its Property.

COUNT VI

Violation of the United States ConstitutionFreedom of Association: First and Fourteenth Amendments

(42 U.S.C. 1983)69. LifeChurch incorporates herein by reference as if fully set forth below the



of its right to freely associate for the purposes of religious exercise and for intimate association

as secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and made applicable to the

States by the Fourteenth Amendment, by prohibiting LifeChurch from associating on its

Property.

COUNT VII

Violation of the United States ConstitutionFreedom of Speech: First and Fourteenth Amendment

(42 U.S.C. 1983)



72. By intent and design, churches are expressive in nature. Among other things, they

are architectural statements to the surrounding community of the churchs belief in God and in



19/30


the necessity of looking to God for inspiration, guidance and salvation. The interior of a church

is used for the expression of religious messages to church members, guests and casual visitors

alike.


of its right, secured by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States

Constitution and made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, to express itself

on matters of religion by, inter alia , discriminating against LifeChurch based on the religious

nature of its expression, by unreasonably inhibiting its right to freely express its faith to its

worshipers and the community, and by applying various land use regulations so as to delay,obstruct and unreasonably deny LifeChurch the ability to use its Property for expressive

purposes.

COUNT VIII

Violation of the United States ConstitutionFreedom of Assembly: First and Fourteenth Amendments

(42 U.S.C. 1983)




of its right to free assembly for the purpose of worship, as secured by the First Amendment to the

United States Constitution and made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, by

prohibiting LifeChurch from peaceably worshiping in a location where similar groups would be

(and are) permitted to peaceably assemble.



20/30


COUNT IX

Violation of the United States ConstitutionEqual Protection: Fourteenth Amendments

(42 U.S.C. 1983)




of its right to equal protection of the laws, as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the

United States Constitution, by discriminating against LifeChurch and treating it differently from

other similarly situated individuals or entities without a rational basis for the distinction.COUNT X

Violation of the United States ConstitutionDue Process: Fourteenth Amendment

(42 U.S.C. 1983)



79. LifeChurch has the right, secured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment to the United States Constitution, to a fair decision-making process and an impartial

decision-maker before being deprived of the right to use its property for religious purposes.

Specifically, LifeChurch has a procedural due process right to a land use review process that is

non-discriminatory, unbiased, not unduly burdensome, and proceeds in a reasonably expeditious

and fair fashion.

80. By intentionally manipulating the land use approval process to create patently

unreasonable delays, and by the other conduct alleged above, the Town and Town Officials have

deprived and continue to deprive LifeChurch of its right to procedural due process.



21/30


22/30


COUNT XII

Violation of New York State ConstitutionFreedom of Speech: Article I, Section 8




of its right, secured by Article I, Section 8 of the New York State Constitution, to express itself

on matter of religion by, inter alia , discriminating against LifeChurch based on the religious

nature of its expression, by unreasonably inhibiting its right to freely express its faith and to its

worshipers and the community, and by applying various land use regulations so as to delay,

obstruct and unreasonably deny LifeChurch the ability to use its Property for expressive

purposes.

COUNT XIII

Violation of the New York State ConstitutionFreedom of Assembly: Article I, Section 9




of its right to free assembly for the purpose of worship, as secured by Article I, Section 9 of the

New York State Constitution, by prohibiting LifeChurch from peaceably worshiping in a

location where similar groups would be (and are) permitted to peaceably assemble.



23/30


COUNT XIV

Violation of the New York State ConstitutionEqual Protection: Article I, Section 11




of its right to equal protection of laws, as secured by Article I, Section 11 of the New York State

Constitution, by purposefully and systematically discriminating against LifeChurch on the basis

of religion in the Towns and Town Officials application of various land use regulations, which

discrimination has resulted in the abridgement of LifeChurchs rights to freedom of religion,

freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, and due process.

91. The Town and Town Officials have subjected LifeChurch to a degree and

duration of scrutiny which far exceeds that to which they have subjected similarly situated

institutions. By imposing, implementing, and manipulating land use regulations in the manner

described above, and by the conduct described above, the Town and Town Officials have

deprived and continue to deprive LifeChurch of its right to equal protection of laws through their

irrational and wholly arbitrary conduct.

COUNT XV

Violation of the New York State ConstitutionDue Process: Article I, Section 6



93. LifeChurch, as a religious institution, is entitled under law to the benefit of a

presumption that its religious use is beneficial to the community at large and that any approvals,

permits and/or variances it seeks in connection with its development of its Property will be



24/30


granted, subject only to reasonably conditions imposed to protect the public health, safety, and

welfare.

94. LifeChurch is further entitled to a land use review process that is non-

discriminatory, is unbiased, is not unduly burdensome, and proceeds in a reasonably expeditious

and fair fashion.


of due process of law, as secured by Article I, Section 6 of the New York State Constitution, by

intentionally delaying and manipulating the land use approval process to deny LifeChurch the

use of its Property, and by conducting the land use approval process in an arbitrary, biased,unauthorized, and illegal manner which is discriminatory, unduly burdensome, and anything but

expeditious and fair.

96. Furthermore, the Town and Town Officials have deprived and continue to deprive

LifeChurch of due process of law, as secured by Article I, Section 6 of the New York State

Constitution, by intentionally delaying and denying to LifeChurch a fundamental liberty interest

by conducting the land use approval process in an arbitrary, unauthorized and illegal manner

which is discriminatory, unduly burdensome, and anything but expeditious and fair.

COUNT XVI

Petition for Writ of Mandamus



98. LifeChurch has been adversely affected by the Town s and Town Officials

unreasonable delays. The Town and Town Officials have failed to perform duties enjoined upon

them by law. The Town and Town Officials, rather, seek to impose conditions on LifeChurchs



25/30


zoning request that regulate critical aspects of LifeChurchs worship services and religious

activities, including the number of worship services and the time for those worship services. See

Exhibit A. The Town has communicated that those conditions, as more f ully set forth in

Exhib it A, must be satisfied before the Town will consider LifeChurchs site plan application.

99. LifeChurch has satisfied all of the Towns and Town Officials reasonable

requests. The cond itions set forth in Exhibit A, however, are arbitrary and capricious.

100. There is no discretion available to the Town and Town Officials not to place and

keep LifeChurch on the Planning Boards agenda, and all that is left for the Town and Town

Officials to perform is a ministerial act. The Town and Town Officials have refused to performthis ministerial act. In the alternative, in the event that the Town and Town Officials have

discretion to place LifeChurch on the Planning Boards agenda, their failure to place and keep

LifeChurch on the Planning Boa rds agenda is an arbitrary abuse of their power.

101. LifeChurch requests that the Towns conditions set forth in Exhibit A be

annulled and LifeChurchs site plan application be approved. In the alternative, LifeChurch

requests that this Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the Town and Town Officials to place

and keep LifeChurchs site plan application on the Planning Boards agenda and the Court

further order the Town Planning Board vote as to whether LifeChurchs site plan application be

approved or denied.

COUNT XVII

Declaratory Relief





26/30


103. For more than twenty (20) months, the Town and Town Officials have unlawfully

delayed and frustrated LifeChurchs efforts to gain the requisite approvals to develop its Property

and begin its Project.

104. An actual controversy exists between the parties involving substantial

constitutional and statutory issues, in that the Town and Town Officials actions, both on their

face and as applied, violate LifeChurchs rights under, inter alia , RLUIPA, the United States

Constitution, and the Constitution of the State of New York.

105. The foregoing dispute presents a real controversy which is now ripe for

adjudication. Accordingly, LifeChurch seeks a declaratory judgment against the Town andTown Officials as follows:

(a) A declaration that the Town s and Town Officials actions related to LifeChurch

violate RLUIPA; violate LifeChurc hs freedom of religion, freedom of association,

freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, equal protection and due process rights under

the United States Constitution; and violate LifeChurchs freedom of religion, freedom of

speech, freedom of assembly, equal protection and due process rights under the New

York State Constitution.

(b) A declaration that the Town s and Town Officials actions related to LifeChurch have

unjustifiably substantially burdened LifeChurchs Christian practices in violation of 42

U.S.C. 2000cc(a)(1).

(c) A declaration that the Towns arbitrary and capricious conditions set forth in Exhibit

A shall by annulled and LifeChurchs site plan application be approved.

106. No prior application for the relief being sought herein has been made to this Court

or to any other court.



27/30


COUNT XVIII

Preliminary and Permanent Injunction



108. The Town and Town Officials have deprived LifeChurch of the constitutional and

statutory rights mentioned above by intentionally delaying, manipulating and thwarting the

municipal approval process and by such other actions and inactions as alleged above.

109. LifeChurch has been irreparably injured as a result of the deprivation of its

constitutional rights.

110. By reason of the foregoing, LifeChurch is entitled to preliminary and permanent

injunctive relief, as set forth in its request for relief herein.

VI.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, LifeChurch requests that this Court grant the

following relief:

1. A declaration that the Town s and Town Officials actions related to LifeChurch

violate RLUIPA; violate LifeChurchs freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of

speech, freedom of assembly, equal protection and due process rights under the United States

Constitution ; and violate LifeChurchs freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of

assembly, equal protection and due process rights under the New York Constitution.

2. A declaration that the Town s and Town Officials actions related to LifeChurch

have unjustifiably substantially burdened LifeChurch s Christian practices in violation of 42

U.S.C. 2000cc(a)(1).



28/30


3. A declaration that the Towns arbitrary and capricious conditions set forth in

Exhibit A shall by annulled and LifeChurchs site plan application be approved.

4. Preliminarily and permanently enjoining and restraining the Town and Town

Officials and ordering prohibitory and mandatory relief as follows:

(a) enjoining the Town and Town Officials from applying their laws in a manner that

substantially burden Life Churchs religious exercise;

(b) enjoining the Town and Town Officials from imposing or implementing State and

local land use regulations in a manner which treats LifeChurch on less than equal terms

with other similarly situated assembles, institutions, or entities;(c) enjoining the Town and Town Officials from applying State and local land use laws in

a manner that prevent LifeChurch from associating for purposes of expressive religious

activity;

(d) enjoining the Town and Town Officials from applying State and local land use laws

in a discriminatory manner, and otherwise enjoin the Town and Town Officials from

preventing Life Churchs exercise of its constitutional rights;

(e) c ompelling and directing the Towns Planning Board to issue all necessary approvals

and permits to allow LifeChurch to develop the Project;

(f) prohibiting the Town and Town Officials from impeding or interfering in any way

with LifeChurchs actual development and construction of the Project; and

(g) annulling the conditions set forth in Exhibit A that the Tow n seeks to impose on

LifeChurch, or in the alternative, issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Town and

Town Officials to place and keep LifeChurchs site plan application on the Planning

Boards agenda and to vote on LifeChurchs site plan applicati on.



29/30


5. Awarding compensatory damages in favor of LifeChurch and against the Town

and Town Officials in such amount as the Court deems just and proper to compensate

LifeChurch for the deprivation of its constitutional and statutory rights, and to compensate

LifeChurch for its expenditures and fees caused by the Town s and Town Officials intentional

and wrongful course of conduct which has delayed, obstructed and unreasonably denied

LifeChurch the ability to develop its Property in an efficient and expeditious manner.

6. Awarding LifeChurch the recovery its rea sonable and necessary attorneys fees,

expert fees, costs, and expenses from the Town and Town Officials pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

1988.7. Awarding LifeChurch the recovery of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at

the maximum applicable legal rates from the Town and Town Officials.

8. Awarding LifeChurch the recovery of such other and further relief, both at law

and in equity, to which it may show itself to be justly entitled.

VII.

DEMAND FOR JURY

Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, LifeChurch hereby

demands a trial by jury of this action of all issues that may be tried by a jury.

LifeChurch respectfully submitted this 17th day of December, 2014.



30/30

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Chr istoph er A. Pr iore ____________________CHRISTOPHER A. PRIOREState Bar No. 5054960

DONALD ZEE, P.C.1 Winners Cir Ste 140Albany, NY 12205Phone: (518) 489-9423Fax: (518) 489-9428Email: [email protected]

MICHAEL L. KNAPEK (pending pr o hac vice)Texas State Bar No. [email protected] W. DIMITT (pending pr o hac vice)

Texas State Bar No. [email protected] WALKER L.L.P.901 Main Street, Suite 6000Dallas, Texas 75202(214) 953-6000 (telephone)(214) 661-6882 (facsimile)

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LIFECOVENANT CHURCH, INC.

11847771v.1 141947/00002


life covenant church complaint

Documents